130
NATO Claims Western Strikes on Yemen Are Defensive
(www.telesurenglish.net)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 13 Jan 2024
130 points (92.8% liked)
World News
32088 readers
966 users here now
News from around the world!
Rules:
-
Please only post links to actual news sources, no tabloid sites, etc
-
No NSFW content
-
No hate speech, bigotry, propaganda, etc
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
Hmm. I wonder why they'd fire on a hostile fleet that sailed halfway around the world and that had basically already declared war on them. Particularly when said fleet previously implemented a blockade that caused a famine, which killed hundreds of thousands, mostly children.
How had the ship "basically declared war on them"? Why is the ship there?
If you fire on someone with a big gun, it should be no surprise when they fire back.
The US & Ansar Allah have been warring for nearly a decade now, regardless of whether the US has formally declared it so: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yemeni_civil_war_(2014%E2%80%93present)
The brackets broke the link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yemeni_civil_war_(2014%E2%80%93present)
Edit actually it was that you missed off the last bracket, I think.
In any case, the Yemen civil war is hardly just between two parties, it's a tangled web of proxies. There are actually many allies who are technically fighting against one another through their proxies.
We blockaded their only port that supplies food for the winning side of their defensive war against Saudi Arabia, causing a massive famine and even Cholera to spread killing a fuck ton of civilians.
This is why our threats don't work. It's hard to threaten a population that you've already tried to genocide who then went on to win their war.
Saudi Arabia blockaded them, the US joined in but then left relatively early on.
Do you think the US hadn't already planned to do airstrikes on Yemen? Ansarallah already knew what they were up to. The ships are there to punish Yemen for daring to oppose the genocide in Israel, which they clearly can relate to, having been genocided by the US and Saudis just recently.
Ansarallah clearly stated they would stop if there was a ceasefire in Gaza, and they attacked ships going to Israeli ports. But I guess if they try to blockade Israel, and take seriously their (and every state's) duty under international law to stop genocide, that's bad, but if the US blockades Yemen causing a genocidal famine, that's just dandy?
The US plans for a lot of situations, as does any competent military. Are you trying to say that the US intended to make these strikes all along, rather than in retaliation for strikes against them?
The ships are there to protect trade. Up until now, they have been focused on shooting down missiles and preventing attacks on trade ships. They're also there to bring a bigger gun to protect Israel if anyone wants to jump into war with them. There is an element of bullshit to this, as the US is basically allowing Israel to commit genocide, but at the same time the US is supposed to protect its allies.
Most of the ships that have been targeted by the Houthis were not going to Israeli ports and have no affiliation with Israel. When they have claimed there was some affiliation, it's really obtuse and far fetched - like one guy in a parent company that has no real involvement with the ship or its cargo.
I don't know the specifics of the US' previous blockade or the famine in Yemen. If you can point me to some information on that I'd appreciate it, right now my searches are drowned out in coverage of the latest events. However, the whole conflict in Yemen is a mess of proxy parties fighting on behalf of others, it's a tangled web with no good parties - as usual, the only ones really winning are the people selling weapons.
Yes, obviously.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blockade_of_Yemen
Jesus Christ as an American this makes me want to vomit. The libs defending this shit are fucking unreal.
Thanks for the link. However, it says that it's a Saudi Arabian blockade, the US participated at the beginning but was not the driving force behind it and did not stay for long.
US involvement since then has primarily been the supply of weapons. Like I say, the only real winners are arms dealers.
Supplying weapons goes a lot further than one might think. I remember reading somewhere (please don't make me dig this up), that practically all the ground maintenance staff of the Saudi air force are US personell (maybe private contractors don't remember). Just the pilots are Saudis really. The US supported this war and blockade in various ways all the way through. It should be obvious why Ansarallah thinks the US is their enemy.
Oh absolutely, the US are also providing intelligence. However they're not doing the fighting or directing the military activities. But the UK are also doing much of the same, it's just that the US are more proficient at it.
Unless you are all in with Bin Laden's reasons for 9/11, it was Ansarella who attacked the US first. The US military didn't throw a dart at map and bomb Yemen for no particular reason.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Cole_bombing
For fuck's sake. Do you think every middle easterner is part of the same terrorist organization, or why the fuck would you bring up an al-Qaeda attack in 2000 to justify bombing a Shia group in 2024?
Yeah that's a big deal.
But it's still not a war between the US and Yemen.
If a ship is in international waters, it has every right to be there, regardless of nationalities involved.
Does that include Iranian ships?
Yes it does. Ships of any nation have a right to transit international waters.
When Iranian ships (or ships of any nation, really) engage in acts of privacy, then they open themselves up to the consequences, whatever those may be.
The US has been seizing non-Iranian ships in international waters that it claims are carrying Iranian oil. It has been doing this long before the current unpleasantness.
The country engaging in the act of piracy is the US.
Also, the Bab Al-Mandreb straight is the territorial waters of Yemen, Eritrea and Djibouti. It is not international waters.
Yes they do. I presume from your stance you are in favour of the US seizing or sinking Iranian ships when they are in waters the US controls just like the Houthis are attempting to do?
So then you believe international waters are waters that America controls?
I'm confused, do you think international waters, like shipping lanes leaving the Red sea, are a thing or do you believe might makes right and if you can exert force you control it? If the the former then the US and the Houthis are both in the wrong, if the latter then they are both fine. So which is it?
The Bab Al-Mandreb straight is not international waters. It is the territorial waters of Yemen, Eritrea, and Djibouti.
It doesn't if it's there to wage an illegal war.
Yes it does. Look up the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, if you're not being purposefully obtuse.
And as much as we may not like it, with the way US laws currently are, there is nothing illegal about USN vessels being in the Red Sea
I'm not talking about US law. Who gives a fuck about US law? The ships are there to attack Ansarallah, so they have it coming.
Because, as the warships are US flagged, all that matters for their conduct (until a UN resolution is passed or ICC takes action) is US Law.
Since the USN vessels are not within the internationally recognized jurisdiction of Yemen, Yemeni laws don't apply. So it can't really be illegal, then? Or is the law that no one, anywhere on earth, is allowed to disagree with them?
The Saudi coalition (including the US; the US navy even directly took part in the blockade) has waged war on Ansarallah for years, and created an artificial famine that killed hundreds of thousands, mostly children. The US is waging an illegal war of aggression and genocide on the people of Yemen. They don't need a UN resolution to have the right to defend themselves.